Returning to the campaign trail a day after his barbs at Barack Obama’s handling of the Middle Eastern attacks sparked recriminations, Mitt Romney amplified his criticism of Obama’s foreign policy, arguing the President had put the U.S. “at the mercy of events, instead of shaping events.”

Romney kicked off his remarks in this bellwether Northern Virginia suburb by blasting Obama for reducing the might of the U.S. military. “We have to have a military second to none, and that’s so strong no one would ever think of testing it” Romney said. Obama, he argued, had erred in scaling back the country’s capacity to exert its strength around the world.

“This president has done something I find very hard to understand,” Romney said. “Ever since FDR, we’ve had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once. And he’s saying, no — we’re going to cut that back to only one conflict.” The line drew applause from the crowd of some 2,700 gathered in a park across from a high school. But it was arguably an off-key note at a moment when even large factions of the Republican Party have grown weary of grinding wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Romney’s withering attacks on the President’s handling of the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the deadly attacks on the temporary consulate in Libya on Tuesday make clear that he intends to take a hawkish position on foreign policy – a perch from which he can criticize Obama as a feckless apologist who has diminished America’s standing abroad. Romney, whose budget blueprint includes an increase in military funding, slammed the incumbent for proposing deep cuts to defense appropriation through a budget that slices spending and the sequester agreed to as part of the debt-limit deal.

“If I’m President of the U.S., we will restore our military commitment and keep America the strongest military in the world,” he said. The world needs American leadership. The Middle East needs American leadership.”

The former Massachusetts governor sparked a bipartisan backlash Tuesday night for blasting Obama’s “disgraceful” decision to “sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” (In fact, Obama had no role in the statement Romney was referring to, issued by the U.S. embassy in Egypt, and the attacks had yet to occur when it went out.) Despite the criticism his remarks drew, on Wednesday morning Romney doubled down, arguing it was “a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.” And his remarks Thursday foreshadow an intent to keep hammering away.

Foreign policy has been an area of relative strength for Obama, who has regularly lead on the subject in the polls. And while it’s a topic on which Republicans have traditionally thrived, it’s also one where Romney’s resume is thin — a weakness exacerbated by his uneven performance on an international trip this summer. But the attacks in Egypt and Libya, and the specter of regional tumult that accompanies them, have thrust foreign affairs to the forefront of the presidential race with less than two months to go.

Romney advisers say they believe foreign policy – the subject of the candidates’ first national debate, on Oct. 3 – favors their candidate. Public support for the course Obama took during the Arab spring could plummet if the tinderbox ignites. Advisers say Romney’s controversial criticism of Obama bore out a criticism he has been leveling at Obama at least since 2010, when he published a book, No Apology, that accused the President of kowtowing to foreign governments. At Thursday’s Fairfax rally, several fans toted copies of the book. “Give ‘em hell, Mitt!” one yelled.

Not everyone was on Romney’s side. As the candidate began his remarks, he was heckled by a man who cried, “Why are you politicizing Libya?” To drown him out, the crowd began a U-S-A chant and placed a campaign placard in front of his face before the man was escorted out. Romney, who had just issued a halting tribute to America’s four fallen diplomats – “What a tragedy to lose such a wonderful, wonderful, uh, wonderful people that have been so wonderful” — seemed a little rattled. “I would offer a moment of silence, but one gentleman doesn’t want to be silent, so we’re going to keep on going,” he said. “Let me talk about something else.”

"We’ve had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once. And he’s saying, no — we’re going to cut that back to only one conflict.”I don't think I want to live in a world where romney is the leader of our country- a world where more conflict is better.

Let's take a little trip back in time to see how far the GOP has fallen.

1980 presidential election: News reports that an effort to rescue the American hostages from the Tehran embassy failed.

Response by Republican candidate Ronald Reagan? "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

Response from Republican candidate George H.W. Bush? “I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically."

Mr. Romney, politics stops at the nation's shore, sir. Anyone with any hope of one day leading this nation should know that.

“If I’m President of the U.S., we will restore our military commitment and keep America the strongest military in the world,” he said. The world needs American leadership. The Middle East needs American leadership.”

it is stupid to attack Obama in a moment of international crisis caused clearly by factors totally out of the control of the President .. it will only give more power to Obama and make Romney look like a loser

Yes, of course Mr. Romney is demagoguing the issue of war, the military, and events in Libya.

What baffles me, however, is that he is making a bad political move. He does not appear to have a finger on the pulse of the American electorate when it comes to the issue of the military and war (or much else, thus far in the campaign).

Overwhelmingly, Americans are disillusioned with both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the majority of Americans now disapprove of the go-it-alone policy of the previous administration, as well as the idea that we need to spend more money on the military.

War mongering is just plain bad politics at this time in our history. Yet, Mr. Romney doesn't seem to get that.

The GOP seems intent on giving this election to Mr. Obama, who by all historical precedents should be trailing badly in the polls on his way to a defeat.

what makes romnie think he has the experience to crtique any forign pollicy, this guy cant even go to a friendly country to watch a sporting event without pissing off the whole place, and 2 years ago all the republicans were badmouthing him for not bring home the troops, anything to critiz him and try to make him look bad, if it wasn't for him we would be in a big depression

The neocons are at it again. They pushed Bush the Younger to start that mad rush to Baghdad in search of non-existant WMDs that cost us over a trillion dollars. (Keep in mind that Bush also gifted the nation the biggest recession since the Great Depression and from which we are still struggling to recove). Now they want more wars. I suppose if Romey were President today we would have seen Cairo, Benghazi, Tehran and Moscow nuked by now.

The last desperate life line that Willard and Pauly have is to hope for more US diplomats being murdered and more embassies burned. If the protesters in the Arab streets could cast a vote it would be for the Ramp;R boys. They need one another.

We spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined and even if we cut it in half we would still spend more. Just how much is enough ? Furthermore its time to spend where we get real results and not on items that either dont work (F35 fighter) or the pentagon doesn't want but gets railroaded through by senators who are controlled by the arms lobby.

The disrespect RMoney showed for Ambassador Stevens, a brave man serving his country in impossible conditions, proves him unfit to be President. Were the tables turned, GOPers would crucify any Dem that pulled this shinola, and everybody knows it.

Why is the GOP so in love with war? Why do bombs beat diplomacy and negotiation in their book? What is it about death and destruction that so appeals to them?

Unless Willard is actually getting foreign policy and security briefings, he has no idea what is actually happening, what the administration is actually doing, or what he's talking about. And yet, as a candidate for president, his words are getting global play.